Name

nInstitution

nCourse

nDate

nCapital Punishment Case

nIntroduction

nCapital punishment refers to the method of executing individuals as way of punishment for a particular crime after an appropriate legal process (Brown 1). The paper will explore opposing views on capital punishment and use a case study to define the ethical dilemma. Secondly, the paper will examine the various ethical perspectives and ethical theories in the case study in order to propose a solution to the dilemma. The topic in this ethical paper is important because it provides insights on how to deal with capital crimes. In addition, the topic is crucial in the contemporary world because it help to offer guidance in formulation of policies on death penalties.

nFirst, the paper is composed of part I and II. For Part I, the paper will discuss the different opinions surrounding the issues of capital punishments. Secondly, it will discuss the case study involving moral and ethical issues of capital punishment. Thirdly, it will examine ethical dilemma exhibited in the case study. For Part II, the paper will explore on the duty ethics, virtue ethics, consequential ethics and integrated approach in order to find a solution to the ethical dilemma. The paper will propose a decision and recommendation on what ought to be taken. Precisely, various issues surround the practice of capital punishment in different parts of the globe.

nPart I

nDifferent expert opinions have emerged in regards to capital punishment as some people support it while others oppose it. The debate on capital punishment is centred on the ideas of retribution, deterrence, and justice. Retribution refers to the kind of deserved punishment because of committing a crime or wrongful act (Friedland 21). Deterrence refers to a punishment that can discourage a person from repeating similar wrongdoings. Moreover, right to life is a fundamental freedom, which demands that all human being should have right to life. Finally, justice refers to the practice of treating people fairly and equally (Steiker and Garland 57).

nThe concept of retribution is the normally used by conservatives to justify capital punishment in the society. Proponents of this method of punishment claim that death penalty is acceptable when used in cases of serious crimes or vexing elements such as massacre, terrorism, torture murder, child murder and police murder (Bohm 91). Scholars such as Robert Blecker support this method implying that the magnitude of punishment must be in proportion to the type of crime (Twitchell 11). Moreover, they also highlighted that extreme punishments are justifiable because each murderer should die on the basis that the loss of human life is unmatched to any imprisonment. Furthermore, capital punishment is supported on the basis that communities have a moral responsibility to safeguard the welfare and safety of its members. In this respect, murderers disrupt this welfare and safety (Friedland 22). Therefore, only by executing the murderers, authority ensures that the convicted murderers get what they deserve.

nOn the contrary, critics of death punishment maintain that retribution is revenge hence should not be tolerated. Moreover, they explain that murderers deserve respect since they have the capacity to make free and rational choices (Steiker and Garland 61). In their views, most victims of murder demand revenge especially through capital penalty. When these people succeed in pursuing vengeance they turn out to perpetrators. Therefore, death punishment in order to avenge the death of other people is socially and morally unacceptable (Twitchell 12). Therefore, people should desist from using capital punishment to deal with serious crime because it does achieve retribution.

nOpponents of retributivist effect of death penalty advices that it inadequate method to achieve justice to the victim. Since, use of retribution is based on the “eye for an eye” formula, in case a mass assassin kills five persons, then murdering him or her is principally not penalty in kind. Some crimes are so atrocious that they lack a technique to retributively balance the justice scales (Friedland 25). Retribution is meant to provide a penalty that is proportionate to the type of crime committed hence harmonizing the justice scales. However, this aspect is not applicable with heinous criminals. For instance, it cannot be utilized among the rapists and torturers. Moreover, opponents of death penalty claim that the world should move away from this practice because it is too cruel for contemporary human standards (Meltsner 11).

nSimilarly, proponents of death penalty argue that it helps to deter serious crime. In so doing, this strategy helps to establish highest stability of morality over evil (Bohm 97). Persons who are deterred through capital punishment are less likely to engage in wrongful acts. The concept of deterrence is based on the idea that certain heinous and dreadful crimes require stiffer punishment such as death (Steiker and Garland 61). Therefore, some crimes cannot be deterred through life imprisonment hence require stiffer punishment such as death penalty.

nOn the contrary, opponents of death penalty note that it is not a successful practice of deterring ferocious crime. Studies that are more recent have indicated that death penalty does not reduce crime (National Research Council 11). The researchers compared countries or states, which legalized capital punishments and those that have not illustrated that the rate of killing is not associated to whether the law is in force (Meltsner 11). Indeed, there are huge numbers of killings in countries or jurisdictions with the capital punishment as compared to those without. In fact, capital punishment does not necessarily accomplish the value of safeguarding the public from assassins who may decide to kill (Friedland 30). More importantly, long-term imprisonment of perpetrators is likely to accomplish deterrence without taking away another human life. In addition, death punishment does not ensure offenders acquire what they deserve. Opponents of death penalty also insist that murder crimes should not be punished by death but they should experience severest form of punishment that human morals and ethics can permit (Charles and Durlauf 17).

nFurthermore, supporters of capital punishment claim that justice stresses that murderers convicted of atrocious crimes such as murder must be punished by death. Significantly, justice is fundamentally a process of ensuring that all people are treated fairly (Usman 9). It is unfair if a wrongdoer intentionally causes huge pains onto others that he/she has to endure. Therefore, principles of justice advocate the authorities to impose equal measures of pain to murderers in the same way they executed to innocent people (Twitchell 14). Death penalty enhances fairness by imposing deaths to persons who intentionally killed others.

nOn the contrary, critics of death penalty assert that capital punishment must be abolished since it is unjust. They maintain that justice obliges that all individuals be treated fairly and equally. Research has indicated although many people are convicted of homicide, only a few are subjected to death penalty. Therefore, justice is not applied in jurisdictions that allow death sentences. For instance, in the United States, in 1987, more than 19,000 were convicted for homicides but only less than 300 faced death penalty (Friedland 33). Reports noted that most of these victims belonged to the minority groups such as the blacks and people from poor backgrounds. Therefore, opponents of this practice claim that individuals are sentenced to death since they lack resources to appeal their punishments, belong to the minorities, have a weak defence or lack witnesses in their cases (Steiker and Garland 72).

nAccording to proponents of capital punishments, the practice is unjust since most of the innocent people are affected. Reports indicated that from 1900, close to 400 persons in the United States have been erroneously convicted of capital rape or homicide. The capital punishment acts as a barrier to correct any such errors (Usman 9). However, in case death punishment is illegal in the United States, imprisoned persons later discovered to be innocent can be compensated and released for wrongful imprisonment. The ethical dilemma of capital punishment can be demonstrated through a case study (Friedland 33). The case study will help to explain the issues surrounding legalization of death penalty in the current society.

nCase study

nChris Craig and Derek Bentley Capital Punishment Case Study

nDerek Bentley was sentenced to murder in 1953 at an age of 19 years. Initially, during his childhood, in 1941, he had suffered from bombing raid, which led to brain damage and epilepsy. He was sent to an approved school but he experienced challenges to carry out simple thing such as reciting song lyrics (Seal 21). Moreover, although he had completed his education at an age of 19, he had the mental age of an eleven year old.

nChristopher Craig was delinquent teenager who was engaged in various criminal activities. At 16 years, he convinced Derek to join a criminal gang. Craig normally used firearms in burglary and other criminal activities. In one occasion, Craig (16 years) and Derek Bentley (19 years) planned a robbery in a London warehouse. Craig was armed with a pistol. The two were identified arriving at the premises and the police were notified. One of police officer managed to grab Bentley but he managed to escape. He shouted at his colleague “Let him have it, Chris”. Craig shot several times at the officer where he sustained injury at his shoulder (Seal 27). After more police officers arrived at the scene, Craig shot dead one of them. However, they were able to arrest both Craig and Bentley after bullet supply exhausted.

nBentley and Craig were charged in 1952 with murder. However, although Craig was guilty of killing a police officer, he could not receive death penalty because he was below 18 years. Unfortunately for Bentley, he could receive the penalty since was over 18 years (Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 13). Nonetheless, in the process of the case, the prosecution defence seemed to be far less convincing (Bohm 101). The police were uncertain the number of shots fired and by whom. In addition, experts failed to establish the meaning of the phrase “Let him have it Chris”. They did not know whether Bentley was asking Chris to surrender and give the firearm to the officer. Similarly, they failed to establish whether he meant Chris was to shot the police officer (Friedland 35).

nThe jury noted that Bentley was mentally subnormal and illiterate. He was also unprepared to go through cross-examination because of his mental age of 11 years (Usman 9). Bentley failed to defend himself and normally accepted accusations that were not true. The judge established that both were guilty of murder. Bentley was subjected to capital punishment while Craig was detained for 10 years because he was under 18 years (Bohm 133).

nEthical Dilemma

nAn ethical dilemma refers to a difficult situation that encompasses an obvious conflict between right imperatives. In addition, ethical dilemma represents an event where a choice has to be done between two alternatives, neither of which solves the event in a morally suitable manner (Petersilia and Reitz eds. 29). In such circumstances, personal and societal moral guidelines can offer no acceptable result for the selector (Seal 25). Ethical dilemmas presume that the selector will be guided by social norms such as religious teachings, and codes of law.

nThe capital punishment involving Derik Bentley presented an instance of ethical dilemma. Although both Craig and Bentley participated in burglary and killing of police officers, only one person was hanged (Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 17). In addition, Bentley was not really the actual murderer since Craig was responsible of shooting the police officer. Moreover, ethical dilemma emerges on whether capital punishment should have been applied to a person with mental problems. Indeed, Bentley had a mental age of eleven years at the period of the criminality (Friedland 37). Similarly, he was nearly illiterate, suffered from epilepsy, and was declared mentally unfit and unstable, to participate in national service. On the other hand, he attended an Approved School because he was involved in petty crimes at childhood (Bohm 134).

nThe other ethical dilemma emerge from the phrase “Let him have it, Chris”. The phrase became the main point of contention from the prosecution. Bentley could have meant that Chris should surrender the gun to the officer. Similarly, the statement could have meant that Chris should shot at the police officer (Usman 13). More importantly, both persons failed to admit that Bentley made the remarks. Christopher Bentley was a victim of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. It was morally unacceptable to apply capital punishment to a person with mental challenges such as epilepsy (Seal 30). The jury should have considered the fact that Bentley was not directly liable of murder.

nPart II

nThe part seeks to apply ethical theories in order to recommend a solution to the dilemma and make an appropriate decision.

nDeontological perspective

nDeontological perspective is a form of ethical insight that considers the morality of deeds on rules. It is also referred to as duty ethics since rules compel a person to his/her duty (Shatz and Shatz 41). Therefore, professionals such as judges are bound by duty or obligation and subsequent moral rulings. Immanuel Kant suggested that to work in the morally appropriate manner, individuals should work from duty. In addition, he claimed that it was not the results of activities that make them wrong or right but the aims of the individuals who perform the actions (Bohm 137).

nTherefore, in order to solve the ethical dilemma in Bentley’s capital punishment, the judiciary must work in a morally suitable way based on the duty to act ethically (Kramer 37). According to Kant, the judgement on capital punishment must be guided by what is intrinsically good. In addition, things such as murder penalty that normally appears good fail to be intrinsically and moral good (Steiker and Garland 80). Precisely, capital punishment facilitates suffering of people hence it is ethically worse.

nTherefore, in order to solve the ethical dilemma such as one involving Bentley, the judicial system must be guided by good will to deliver a fair judgement. In so doing, a person with good will has the capacity to eliminate challenges that arise from accidents that increase chances of death penalty to an innocent individual (Kramer 39).

nFor this case study, Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that people should institute a universal law guided on maxim to promote the right to life of all persons. In addition, people should strive to treat other humanely irrespective of the crime committed (Usman 9). Finally, all sensible being should perform, as he is through his maxim normally an authorizing member in a global kingdom of ends.

nAretological Perspective (Virtue ethics)

nVirtue ethics focus on rules that individuals should adhere to and concentrate on ways to assist other people enhance better character traits. In this case, it suggests that capital punishment can be solving through good characters such as generosity and kindness (Shatz and Shatz 42). Consequently, these character traits will facilitate an individual to make the right decisions in his/her future life (Kramer 40). Virtue ethics also recommends that people must understand the process of breaking bad characters such as anger, revenge and greed. In this respect, these are vices prevent a particular person from changing his/her behaviours and become a transformed individual (Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 17).

nExistentialism principles as explained by John-Paul Santre noted that human characters are the main factor of ethical thinking as opposed to rules and consequences. Therefore, he suggested in order to solve the ethical dilemma involving the capital punishment, human being should focus on cultivating appropriate character traits rather than setting rules (Kramer 40).

nAccording to Santre, existential becoming can be based on the factor of treating other humanely because they are not objects (Petersilia and Reitz eds. 63). In addition, he explains the concept of bad faith where he suggests that human beings should evade individual deceit concerning the freedom to select and self-realize. In this respect in order to sustain own being of a person, human beings should control the expression ‘bad faith” and cultivate freedom of others (Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 20).

nIn case of ethical dilemma, the Santre implies that human beings should create a relationship that would eliminate cases of capital punishment. Instead, they should cultivate human freedom and right to life (Kramer 41). Moreover, human can avoid ethical dilemma by practices work that emphasize on humanities and good reputation of people.

nTeleological Perspectives (consequential ethics)

nTeleological perspectives suggest that the consequences of person behaviours are the decisive foundations of any decision concerning the wrongness or rightness of that behaviour. Therefore, based on teleological perspective, an ethically right action is one, which can generate a desirable consequence or outcome (Petersilia and Reitz eds. 101).

nJeremy Bentham noted that fears and interests affect individuals. However, their consequences are based on their views on the interests. In this regard, happiness is considered an intensification of pleasure and reduction of pain. It emphasizes happiness for all people rather than happiness for a single person (Kramer 44). In addition, human being should make policies that seek to eliminate suffering and pain of people such as Bentley. Instead, they should develop laws that promote fairness and pleasure amongst the subjects. In addition, the ethical dilemma in Bentley case study should be solved by establishing regulations that produce better outcomes in the society.

nIntegrated Perspectives

nVarious ethics perspectives have been proposed that can guide in solving the issues highlighted in the case study involving ethical dilemma in capital punishment. Therefore, an integrated approach would play a major part in offering suitable solutions to murder penalty (Shatz and Shatz 45).

nDeontological ethics emphasize on duty ethics and abiding to moral duties or principles. Immanuel Kant recommends that actions such as death penalty should be guided by moral absolutes irrespective of the circumstances (Kramer 47). Therefore, he advises that execution of wrongdoers is not morally acceptable practice because it is against ethical duties and principles.

nConsequentialism pays close attention on the ethics of actions on the results of an outcome. Therefore, consequentialism principles propose that death penalty should be abandoned because it leads to detrimental effects (Shatz and Shatz 61). Capital punishment does not produce pleasure but maintain pain in the society. Moreover, virtue ethics emphasize the need for people to cultivate desirable character traits (Kramer 49). Therefore, capital punishment should not be used because it does not give a person a chance to change his/her character traits (Brown 1).

nConclusion

nCapital punishment refers to death penalty where an offender is executed for heinous crimes. It is a source of debate in contemporary society because some jurisdiction still supports the provision while others have stopped. Supporters of capital punishment suggest that it is effective for deterrence, retribution and provide justice to victims (Petersilia and Reitz eds. 71). However, opponents advice that capital punishment does not lead to deterrence because cases of people committing serious crime are still high in jurisdictions, which have legalized it as those that have abandoned it (Shatz and Shatz 12). In addition, it does not facilitate retribution or revenge because killing a serial murderer will not achieve enough reprisal. Similarly, capital punishment does not deliver justice because killing another individual will not achieve fairness.

n

nReferences

nBohm, Robert M. Deathquest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States. Routledge, 2011.

nBrown, Christopher Leslie. Moral capital: Foundations of British abolitionism. UNC Press Books, 2012.

nCharles, Kerwin Kofi, and Steven N. Durlauf. “Pitfalls in the use of time series methods to study deterrence and capital punishment.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29.1 (2013): 45-66.

nDurlauf, Steven N., Chao Fu, and Salvador Navarro. “Capital punishment and deterrence: understanding disparate results.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29.1 (2013): 103-121.

nFriedland, Paul. Seeing justice done: the age of spectacular capital punishment in France. Oxford University Press, 2012.

nKramer, Matthew H. The ethics of capital punishment: A philosophical investigation of evil and its consequences. Oxford University Press, 2011.

nMeltsner, Michael. Cruel and unusual: The Supreme Court and capital punishment. Quid Pro Books, 2011.

nNational Research Council. Deterrence and the death penalty. National Academies Press, 2012.

nPetersilia, Joan, and Kevin R. Reitz, eds. The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections. Oxford University Press, 2012.

nSeal, Lizzie. Capital Punishment in Twentieth-century Britain: Audience, Justice, Memory. Routledge, 2014.

nShatz, Steven F., and Naomi R. Shatz. “Chivalry is not dead: murder, gender, and the death penalty.” Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 27 (2012): 64.

nSteiker, Carol S., and David Garland. “Capital Punishment and Contingency.” (2012): 760-787.

nTwitchell, Neville. The Politics of the Rope: The Campaign to Abolish Capital Punishment in Britain, 1955-1969. Arena books, 2012.

nUsman, Jeffrey Omar. “Capital Punishment, Cultural Competency, and Litigating Intellectual Disability.” (2012).